Which act was worse?Two young men, brothers, had got into serious trouble. They were secretly leaving town in a hurry and needed money. Karl, the older one, broke into a store and stole a thousand dollars. Bob, the younger one, went to a retired old man who was known to help people in town. He told the man that he was very sick and that he needed a thousand dollars to pay for an operation. Bob asked the old man to lend him the money and promised that he would pay him back when he recovered. Really Bob wasn't sick at all, and he had no intention of paying the man back. Although the old man didn't know Bob very well, he lent him the money. So Bob and Karl skipped town, each with a thousand dollars.
I'm tempted to say they are equally bad. Without a doubt, theft of any kind is wrong...but I do see a point where Bob's crime diverges from just 'theft'. To be clear, they are both legally in the wrong. I argue the following from my own morals.
Why?
Karl committed burglary and larceny, based on the text of the scenario. There is no indication that he used force on another person in the commission of his crime. Clearly guilty, clearly wrong.
Bob defrauded an old man. There is no indication of the relative wealth of the old man to the storekeeper (if that would really matter anyway), so no assumptions based on that can be made here. However, Bob went to another person who is known to help people with the express purpose of defrauding him. The difference to me is that he played the mans emotions, promised to pay him back, and took the money fully knowing he was lying his ass off. That aspect of actually facing the victim of the crime and manipulating them makes it more morally repugnant in my book, since honesty is something I value highly.
